Tito - Air Miner on Warpcast

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

https://twitter.com/AndrewYNg/status/1736577228828496179 This is one of those perspectives that feels wise but I quite disagree with. Consider Covid in Jan 2020. At that time, was it right to focus on (i) actual current realized harm, or (ii) hypotheticals based on projecting exponential functions? Clearly (ii).

15 replies

10 recasts

123 reactions

Sean Wince 🎩 pfp

Sean Wince 🎩

Thank you for saying this. Climate change is somewhat similar in that the current harm is bad and rightly draws attention, but future harm will be catastrophic in comparison.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Tito - Air Miner pfp

Tito - Air Miner

Curious for more of Vitalik's thoughts on climate change. Especially pieces of the solution like carbon removal from ambient air. Climate scientists may "win" the prediction game but where are the levers to take action.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

I admittedly know much less about world-of-atoms science than world-of-bits science, but climate change does feel like it has pretty severe tail-end risks. Carbon removal tech seems really cool, though I think the biggest gains will come from large-scale change toward solar power over the next couple of decades

1 reply

0 recast

14 reactions

Tito - Air Miner pfp

Tito - Air Miner

I just got back from COP28. One thing I want to suggest for your mental model: Decarbonization alone (ie large-scale solar power etc) doesn't get us a stable climate anymore. IPCC models require full decarbonization AND 10 billion tons/year of carbon removal by 2050. Both decarb and removal are necessary.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sean Wince 🎩 pfp

Sean Wince 🎩

Sadly that ideal scenario is not going to happen because there are strong economic forces working against it. IMO we are stuck with an unstable climate at this point. Still, can we achieve 75% of those ideal metrics? 50%? Anything is better than nothing. And some instability is still better than total mayhem.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Tito - Air Miner pfp

Tito - Air Miner

My big picture model is the climate functions more like a light switch than a dimmer switch. So everything is fine or total mayhem. In this framing, current impacts are in "fine" territory. We want to avoid flipping the switch. It's also near impossible to switch back if we do. Decarbonize + carbon removal

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Sean Wince 🎩 pfp

Sean Wince 🎩

I've listened to a few more voices that you might consider "doomers" like Paul Beckwith and came away with the conclusion that the switch is already flipped - just look at the collapse of arctic sea ice. But we still have a chance to prevent the switch from being ripped off the wall completely, if you will.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Tito - Air Miner pfp

Tito - Air Miner

Yes! From the article: "By my calculations, the terrestrial warming in the Arctic is roughly equivalent to a 25 percent boost in global CO2 emissions." (the author calls for carbon removal in the conclusion) https://e360.yale.edu/features/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Sean Wince 🎩 pfp

Sean Wince 🎩

Curious what your personal guess is for the first year we'll see a blue ocean event in the Arctic summer?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction